ArticleBMC health services research2024
Distribution and predictors of haemophilia-related costs in the United Kingdom: analysis of the CHESS I and CHESS II burden of illness studies.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Normalization of Haemostasis in People with Haemophilia A: Expert Consensus on Unmet Needs and a Framework for Advancing Towards Health Equity.TH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- Public health assistance for people with haemophilia in Brazil (PATCH study): a cross-sectional study protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFew studies have evaluated direct medical or societal costs of haemophilia in the United Kingdom (UK), and how patient characteristics impact future costs is uncertain. Cost predictors were identified and examined using cross-sectional data from the CHESS I and II studies.
methodsPatient- and physician-reported outcomes were analysed for UK adult males aged ≤ 65, with haemophilia A or B and no recent clinical trial participation. Demographics, haemophilia type and severity, inhibitors, annual bleed rate (ABR), problem joints (PJs), treatment type, and comorbidities, were utilised in regression analyses. Health-related quality of life was assessed using EQ-5D. Generalised linear models estimated expected non-drug haemophilia-related direct medical costs (DMC) and societal costs (non-drug DMC, direct non-medical and indirect costs). Average marginal effects (AMEs) determined predictors of cost.
resultsCosts for 378 patients were analysed. Mean age was 33 years and 79% (299) had haemophilia A. Mean annual per-patient DMC were £165,001 (including factor treatment costs) and £4,091 when excluding factor replacement treatment costs (non-drug DMC). Mean annual per-patient non-treatment societal costs were £11,550 (standard deviation £20,171) among those with data available (n = 51). Number of PJs, ABR, and treatment regimen were significant determinants of haemophilia-related non-drug DMC (all P < 0.001). Non-drug DMC increased as ABR increased (AMEs were £2,018 for ABR 1-5, £3,101 for ABR 6-10 and £5,785 for ABR ≥ 11, vs. ABR 0) and by £1,869 per additional PJ. No significant predictors of non-drug haemophilia-related societal costs were identified. Mean EQ-5D score was 0.66, with lower scores observed for people with haemophilia B (0.48) compared with haemophilia A (0.71) and with increasing haemophilia severity.
conclusionsUK direct medical and societal costs of haemophilia are substantial. Non-drug DMC were particularly associated with ABR and number of PJs. These findings may be useful for real-world evaluations of the economic burden of haemophilia in the UK.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.